Let's assume that one of atheists' goals is political power.... Let's also assume that atheists want to use this political power to change society so that important decisions align closely with the scientific method. That is, they want laws and rules based on actual evidence and logical, provable conclusions.

If these assumptions are true, then atheists have done their cause an incredible disservice by excluding from their ranks the huge number of rational, logical, considerate, and tolerant god-fearing individuals among the voting public.

I wonder, though, if atheists have considered fully the implications of a belief that there is no God. If there is no God, then how did everything in nature come to exist in its present form? If God did not create the universe, the only other option is that it somehow miraculously developed on its own (the theory of evolution). Those who believe in evolution think everything around us is the result of random events over millions of years. ...

A final thought about atheism: it is the ultimate arrogance. Every atheist should ask himself the following question: “Is it possible that God exists even though I don’t believe there is a God?” The atheists who answer no are not really atheists - they do worship a God, one they see as perfect and all knowing. It is actually an imperfect and flawed God that is really no God at all: themselves. Proverbs 26:12 describes them perfectly: “Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.”

Reader "Dan" left the following comment, which I accidentally deleted. Sorry, Dan!

That second one doesn't make any sense.

There are plenty of atheists who have no problem allying with the right kind of believer when they have a common cause. For instance, there are both atheists and theists working for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. So atheists in general don't 'exclude theists from their ranks.'

But, theists are excluded from being atheists, because they aren't atheists. And when it comes to questions of whether god exists and whatnot, theists are necessarily excluded from the atheist camp.

Knowing theists, he's probably complaining that the latter exclusion (and ensuing disagreements) leads to the former type of exclusion, because people get offended when you think their apologetics are crap (or whatever). If that's the case, I'm not too excited about being inclusive.

I just now came across this article, rather late unfortunately. I wrote the second quote above, and I realize now that maybe I could have been clearer in my statements. When I wrote that post and others that are similar, I was in the middle of an incredible streak of reading and hearing atheists spend much more time deriding religious beliefs than furthering the cause of science and reason as a basis for changing society and politics. They pitted their non-belief against belief in such as condescending way as to help nothing except the self-confidence of hardcore atheists. Since that time, I've encountered a lot more atheists who concern themselves with educating and bettering society.

No, in my post I didn't expect to include theists under the label of "atheist", but Dan above was right that I feared that the latter exclusion would lead to the former exclusion. I'm not talking about pure ideologies, though; I'm talking about political movements. Atheists as a group are so weak right now that they can use all the help they can get. I'd take an educated liberal Christian any day over the evangelicals that are running for president these days. Let us unite behind reason instead of a non-belief.

I know that some atheists and theists work together already, but there are a ton of atheists out there who do nothing but alienate rational people. I know this because I've been a sort of atheist my entire life, ranging from "passionate agnostic" like Neil DeGrasse Tyson to "apatheist" like Bill Maher, and until I read The God Delusion I'd never felt comfortable calling myself an "atheist" because so many of them had insulted me simply for not railing against religious belief. "Pussy agnostic" is my favorite of the names they've called me.

I'll line up against creationism or evangelism in politics as readily as the next atheist, but some of you don't make it easy for me. Both of you, Larry and Dan, seem to have assumed that I'm a theist or apologetic, which has never been the case. I'm just focusing on the big, practical picture. I don't care who believes what as long as they don't take it into the voting booths or the classroom. I understand, also, that ignorance begets ignorance, but atheists would be much more effective as a movement if they focused their attention on irrational behavior instead of irrational beliefs.

Please pick a handle or moniker for your comment. It's much easier to address someone by a name or pseudonym than simply "hey you". I have the option of requiring a "hard" identity, but I don't want to turn that on... yet.

With few exceptions, I will not respond or reply to anonymous comments, and I may delete them. I keep a copy of all comments; if you want the text of your comment to repost with something vaguely resembling an identity, email me.

No spam, pr0n, commercial advertising, insanity, lies, repetition or off-topic comments. Creationists, Global Warming deniers, anti-vaxers, Randians, and Libertarians are automatically presumed to be idiots; Christians and Muslims might get the benefit of the doubt, if I'm in a good mood.

Search This Blog

About the Blog

Notwithstanding fair use, you are free to republish the contents of this blog, but you may not directly or indirectly charge money for its use nor edit the content without my permission, and you must properly credit and link to the original. You don't have to tell me, but it would feed my vanity if you did.